PurpleMountainOutdoors
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2014
- Messages
- 137
- Reaction score
- 33
How well do these bigger frames hold up in scandium?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Scandium Strength in N and L Frame w/ 357
- Thread starter PurpleMountainOutdoors
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Are L and N frames.......
Are L and N frames made in scandium at all?
Are L and N frames made in scandium at all?
rburg
Member
Its not really a fair question to ask, or at least how it was asked in this thread. Steel has been improving for a long time now. Comparing a Scandium alloyed frame with a nice pristine Triple Lock would be a joke. Even comparing an early triple lock with a gun from the 1930s, like a RM won't lead to fair results. Someone here posted a table showing how tensile strength of the steel used over the past half dozen or so decades. Today's steel is so much better than that used right after WWII.
So the conclusion I think you can draw is that today's Aluminum/Scandium frames are significantly stronger than the same size frame from 50 years ago. If your pre model 29 has held up, then you should figure your 329 will hold up at least as well. And if it doesn't, the factory should fix it (by giving you a new gun.)
I'd think a more valid worry is comparing a J frame gun like a 360 with a steel frame. Its easier to make a big, bulky frame strong than an tiny thin one.
With L frames, you may not get quite as much material. But then a lot of us have confidence in the 386 guns. There's a lot more surface to exert pressure on in a 44 Magnum than a 357.
And just a comment: The Scandium guns aren't like pure, 24 Carat gold. Its an alloy with aluminum and maybe Magnesium. What the materials engineers discovered early on was just a minor amount of Scandium poured into the mix yielded most of the benefits of the stronger material and significantly reduced cost. As I understand the cost, a pound of Scandium costs about $3500. The frame of the gun probably weighs close to that before machining. So if you think the $1000 for the finished 329 or 357 is high, consider what it would cost if pure scandium.
And another factor is probably more significant than the frame. The cylinders made of a titanium alloy seems to be one of the weak points. Sure are a lot of stainless steel cylinders showing up on guns that tried using titanium. Who knows where this will all go.
So the conclusion I think you can draw is that today's Aluminum/Scandium frames are significantly stronger than the same size frame from 50 years ago. If your pre model 29 has held up, then you should figure your 329 will hold up at least as well. And if it doesn't, the factory should fix it (by giving you a new gun.)
I'd think a more valid worry is comparing a J frame gun like a 360 with a steel frame. Its easier to make a big, bulky frame strong than an tiny thin one.
With L frames, you may not get quite as much material. But then a lot of us have confidence in the 386 guns. There's a lot more surface to exert pressure on in a 44 Magnum than a 357.
And just a comment: The Scandium guns aren't like pure, 24 Carat gold. Its an alloy with aluminum and maybe Magnesium. What the materials engineers discovered early on was just a minor amount of Scandium poured into the mix yielded most of the benefits of the stronger material and significantly reduced cost. As I understand the cost, a pound of Scandium costs about $3500. The frame of the gun probably weighs close to that before machining. So if you think the $1000 for the finished 329 or 357 is high, consider what it would cost if pure scandium.
And another factor is probably more significant than the frame. The cylinders made of a titanium alloy seems to be one of the weak points. Sure are a lot of stainless steel cylinders showing up on guns that tried using titanium. Who knows where this will all go.
Cal44
Member
I wonder how many of the Ti cylinders acually wear out and how many are replaced by steel just to be able not to worry about being careful when cleaning.
I have only one gun with a Ti cylinder -- a 242Ti.
I bought a spare Ti cylinder for it in case I have trouble and need the spare part.
Not sure if a 7 shot 686 cylinder would fit in the 242 as the L frame 242 is for 38 sp and 38+P only.
Dave
FYI, the scandium frames do not use magnesium, just scandium and aluminum. The barrels may use magnesium to save weight and money over scandium as they have a stainless steel insert. I notice slight differences between the finish color between the frame and barrel on mine. I noticed this after having the gun for a while.
In regards to titanium, it is stronger than any aluminum alloy and weaker than stainless steel. Someone should tell Gillette razorblade marketing about this. I laugh when those commercials come on...
The best attribute of titanium is its resistance to heat allowing weight savings verses steel. In regards to Ti cylinders compared to SS I'm not sure what the weight savings is in regards to the .44 mag cylinders (ti vs SS). I have a S&W 29 and a 329PD so maybe one day when I'm really bored I will remove both cylinders and put them on the scale for a Pepsi Coke challenge and update my post. My guess is less than five ounces. For those few ounces I'd probably put a SS cylinder on if I started seeing fatigue cracks in mine. I really doubt I will ever see cracks because I rarely shoot magnums from it. I load the Buffalo Bore hard cast bear rounds in my 329PD for Archery hunting in bear country and wearing a much lighter rig is the reason I bought a 329PD. I have only shot a few rounds of BB through it after I sighted it in with .44 specials. Why put higher pressure loads through it if there is no need. The 329PD is a specialty firearm for select purposes. Its not a hand friendly gun to shoot with hot heavy rounds anyway. I recommend a different 44 if you plan on target shooting with it, or hunting on a frequent basis with magnum rounds. Just my opinion.
My background is Aeronautical Engineering with specialty in aircraft structure.
It is way to early to tell how they are going to hold up, Smith and Wessons with Scandium alloy frames have only been around for 2 decades so far.
I think that Scandium is the best thing to happen to N-frames since Stainless Steel came on the scene.
A 5" N-frame, now packs more like a 4" K-frame. . . It is wonderful. And talk about the snub nose and pug nose short barreled N-frames coming in under the 24 ounce weight of a Model 640
The factory started moving away from the Titanium cylinders perhaps a decade ago. Too many folks were scrubbing off the protective coating. Most of the black cylinders on Scandium alloy revolvers are stainless that had been coated in Ion Bond
One of my oldest Scandium alloy Smith and Wessons is my 340. I carry it almost every day. Like it's aluminium alloy brothers, the finish wears off the sharp edges after several years.
Mine has seen in excess of 5,000 full power 357 Magnum through it so far. That is much more than just pleasure shooting, this snubby has been used as a training revolver. That is probably more full Magnum than most users will stand up to. So far it is still going strong
The cylinder could probably be fitted, but it would be exceptionally unwise to fire 357 Magnum in a Model 242
That is not a Scandium alloy frame, it is the company's standard aluminium alloy from that era.
My 325NG in .45acp shoots the same round as my steel 1911 but weighs 16 ounces less. I don't know which one is stronger. I do know which one will be on my titanium hip when I need it. I'm confident it will last if needed.
Similar threads
